Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The myth of the driverless tube train

londonreconnections.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 152 posts

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#131

Post by vidarh »

LatteLazy wrote: post #63
chrisseaton wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he's heir apparent to lead the party nationally He’s not even an MP! He’s not allowed to be the leader.

I don't think he has to be? But he could easily be dropped into a safe seat. That's what they did for Boris in basically the same circumstances. Maybe Heir apparent is a bit strong? He's not defonate. But I can't think of anyone else with the name recognition...

Sadiq Khan wouldn't even make most Labour members top 5. If you're going to look at mayors, Burnham is far more popular among Labour members.

(but of course same issue: would need to become an MP again first)

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#133

Post by tialaramex »

mavhc wrote: post #87
tialaramex wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't, although I guess in a crowded DLR train you might not realise. A DLR train won't go anywhere until the operator closes the doors, which they can do from any set of doors on the train. Because the DLR is GoA 3 there doesn't need to be a plan for how central operations can co-ordinate rescue of a failed train without somebody at the scene, there will be an attendant, who is trained to drive the train, onb…

Interesting. A very strange job then, most of the time you just close doors, and once a year you drive a train

The DLR closes most nights. When it re-opens, the first train of each day on each section is driven manually to confirm that maintenance crews haven't managed to leave anything on the track. Yes there are procedures to ensure they don't do that, but no procedure is foolproof.

Attendants may also choose to drive a train at other times, although doing so will generally be slower even if the computer is overseeing the journey (and the train won't accelerate above a crawl if the computer isn't overseeing) so it would be avoided in normal service.

The main job of these personnel are to assist passengers. So it's more a people job than train driver. Wondering if the Stratford destination is "the Shakespeare one"? They can help. Are the lifts working at the stop you need? They can check. Is it far to walk from this next stop to the museum? Does this ticket work on a ferry or only trains?

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#134

Post by KineticLensman »

e17 wrote: post #127
KineticLensman wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I'm talking about any kind of general emergency. Hence me posting the list of general accidents

> The train driver is the most susceptible to die. You're better assisted by a remote operator The driver didn't die in any of the recent incidents, so they would still be in place to manage the situation. Interestingly, 7/7/05 isn't on the list, presumably because it wasn't an accident. That's exactly the kind of incident that is relevant in the context of this parent thread.

It would be interesting to where on the train is statistically the most survivable.

> Interestingly, 7/7/05 isn't on the list, presumably because it wasn't an accident

Yes, would also be interesting to know how many crime / related incidents are 'managed' by crew or station staff.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#135

Post by tinus_hn »

lbriner wrote: post #39
me_me_me wrote: post #3

Why would it matter? You need so few subway drivers/conductors that does it really matter if you need one per train? Taxis are probably average a driver per 1.5 ish customers. Subway/train is hundreds. This reminds me of optimisation of non critical code. Sure its nice, but the cost/benefit is just not there.

4000 drivers at an average of around £70K per year is not chump change (£280M) + employer costs for staff. Out of a budget of maybe £5B per year, it is not insignificant but I would expect there are other areas where savings could more easily be gained. Maintenance is crazy due to the short maintenance hours and therefore everyone getting paid enhanced rates to work 0:00 to 04:00. Significantly modernizing signalling…

That kind of kit has reliability properties that are hard to imagine. There is a number of things that can go wrong and that gear basically guarantees that if you pass a green sign the track is free. 100% bug free and the only glitches there are is that if a bulb burns out, the system doesn’t run until it is replaced.

You can rebuild that kind of system but it’ll be exactly the same hardware behind a more modern looking panel.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#136

Post by LatteLazy »

Camas wrote: post #106
LatteLazy wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's political. In the uk, train drivers unions are one of the last meaningful unions left and the right wing government hates that. Also, London has a left wing mayor and a very good public transport system. The right wing government hate both the mayor (he's heir apparent to lead the party nationally) and the concept of public transport. That's also the real reason private train operators were bailed out but public…

> hung out to dry £1.8 billion in loans/grants

Compared to 3.5bn in free money to private operators? Who were allowed to cut their services? When TFL lost 600m in the first 8 weeks?

Yes, London got hung out to dry as usual.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#137

Post by LatteLazy »

Ichthypresbyter wrote: post #126
LatteLazy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's rail maintenance that stops trains running 24/7 in London. The rails are too old, often not fit for purpose and no one wants to pay to replace them. So every night they need polishing (literally), grinding, replacing, checking, etc.

>no one wants to pay to replace them. So every night they need... replacing Not sure how that works. More seriously, I am unaware of the Tube tracks being unusually old, or requiring unusual amounts of maintenance because of their age compared to other comparable systems. Have you got a source on that? There's also the fact that the deep Tube lines only have one track per direction, in contrast to the New York Subway…

You're quite right to ask for a citation. Sadly I can't give you one as the TFL rail condition assessments aren't public. Instead I'll point out that Metronet and Tubelines spend billions trying to dig out of the backlog and failed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Lines

>no one wants to pay to replace them. So every night they need... replacing

Yeah, stupid right?

Imagine a signal is broken (and TFL still used vaccume tubes for its signal systems as recently as 2010). So you have to reduce speed on the line. So now the centra-pedal forces on the corner after the speed restriction aren't enough to counter the camber of that curve. So the wheels on ever train grind down the railhead. So now you have the replace the rail (or polish it etc) much sooner than expected.

Failing to replace one part forces you to replace another part. Replacing that part uses up the time/money you have so you can't now replace the first part.

Take the central line anywhere between Bank and Stratford some time. The screaming of the wheels isn't just deafening noise. It's the actual rail being turned into dust because no one has invested a weeks closure and money to fix the rest of the infrastructure. So instead every night someone has to go check it and make sure it hasn't cracked yet...

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#138

Post by Camas »

LatteLazy wrote: post #136
Camas wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hung out to dry £1.8 billion in loans/grants

Compared to 3.5bn in free money to private operators? Who were allowed to cut their services? When TFL lost 600m in the first 8 weeks? Yes, London got hung out to dry as usual.

> Compared to 3.5bn in free money to private operators?

Sadly London is not yet more important than the rest of the UK combined.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#139

Post by LatteLazy »

Camas wrote: post #138
LatteLazy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to 3.5bn in free money to private operators? Who were allowed to cut their services? When TFL lost 600m in the first 8 weeks? Yes, London got hung out to dry as usual.

> Compared to 3.5bn in free money to private operators? Sadly London is not yet more important than the rest of the UK combined.

I didn't say it was, but giving us nothing, taking 3.5bn for yourself and then implying we're the ones with a chip on our shoulders?

Maybe r/uk should kick us out as we're clearly holding you all back.

Re: The myth of the driverless tube train

#140

Post by LatteLazy »

speapr wrote: post #114
LatteLazy wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's political. In the uk, train drivers unions are one of the last meaningful unions left and the right wing government hates that. Also, London has a left wing mayor and a very good public transport system. The right wing government hate both the mayor (he's heir apparent to lead the party nationally) and the concept of public transport. That's also the real reason private train operators were bailed out but public…

Interestingly, this is a situation created by previous Conservative governments. When the national rail system was privatized, lots of smaller individual train operating companies were created, each with a franchise to run different lines. They are incentivized not to cooperate with each other, because taking over another franchise, if another operator fails, doubles the size of your business. So the employers were d…

Yeah, that was a weird time in the uk. The tories sort of ran out of basic competence, even to rig the system to fit them. But then they went on "governing" for a few more years. See also "Black Wednesday" and other similar faff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday

Post reply on HN